Religious Studies 34 (3):235-251 (1998)
|Abstract||This paper replies to Evan Fales' sociological explanation of mystical experience in two articles in "Religious Studies" vol. 32 (143-63 and 297-313). In these papers Fales applies the ideas of I. M. Lewis on spirit possession to show how mystical experiences can be accounted for as vehicles for the acquisition of political power and social control. The rebuttal of Fales contains three main elements: (a) the presentation of specific examples of theistic mystical experience from Christianity and Judaism which provide counter-examples to Fales' theory; (b) the presentation of some general objections to its plausibility; and (c) an argument for the conclusion that the burden of proof lies with naturalistic, reductionist explanations of religious experiences rather than with theistic interpretations of those experiences|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Evan Fales (1996). Mystical Experience as Evidence. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 40 (1):19 - 46.
Ann Taves (2009). Religious Experience Reconsidered: A Building Block Approach to the Study of Religion and Other Special Things. Princeton University Press.
S. Mark Heim (2000). Saving the Particulars: Religious Experience and Religious Ends. Religious Studies 36 (4):435-453.
Evan Fales (1996). Scientific Explanations of Mystical Experiences, Part I: The Case of St. Teresa. Religious Studies 32 (2):143 - 163.
William J. Wainwright (2003). Gale on Religious Experience. Philo 6 (1):114-131.
Evan Fales (1996). Scientific Explanations of Mystical Experiences: II. The Challenge to Theism. Religious Studies 32 (3):297 - 313.
Evan Fales (1999). Can Science Explain Mysticism? Religious Studies 35 (2):213-227.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #64,404 of 549,124 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,124 )
How can I increase my downloads?